Backpedaling

[tyshaun1]

You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.

Tyshaun

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:47 PM\']

Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.

Matt and others, in answering me on this subject, have basically come up with the argument of "Who really gives a ---?"  [/quote]
Those of us making that argument probably aren't wording it exactly that way...

But...uh...yeah, basically.  This isn't a fight that anybody seems too interested in pursuing, except a handful of disgruntled losers who haven't been able to take it very far.  I'd even go so far as to say that some amount of controversy is actually good for some of these shows.

The simple fact is that we're a much more jaded and cynical society now than we were in the late fifties when we were shocked to learn that our real-life heroes on TV weren't what they claimed to be.  We now have a much more realistic view of the "reality" we see on TV, and it's no longer as necessary as it once was (or at least seemed to be) for the FCC to protect us from the big scary producers who might lie to us.

Sure, if it turned out that a popular show was proven without a doubt to be completely and totally rigged, there'd be public outcry and fallout.  But all I've seen are armchair conspiracy theorists who seem to think that somehow, from the comfort of their living rooms, they know more about how these shows are put together than anyone else.

To wit:  Is American Idol actually "shady as all get-out" because they haven't addressed slam voting, or are they merely using an imperfect voting system?  Some talent shows on television are judged by who gets the loudest applause, and that doesn't strike me as terribly scientific.  The nation seems transfixed by the "competition" of The Apprentice, which best as I can tell, is totally based on Donald Trump's whims.  And don't even dredge up that business about Burnett restaging parts of his competitions to get a better camera shot.  Jeopardy does that.

In other words, short of some pretty convincing evidence that somebody is specifically being cheated, the FCC is not going to care one whit about how these rules apply to reality shows.

[leszekp]

Grand Slam did get a greenlight from ABC in February, at least for a pilot, with the show itself penciled in for a summer 2004 run. When the ABC programming chiefs (Braun and what's-her-name) got fired, the new guy put the project on hold for this year. What happens with it now is anyone's guess.

[CaseyAbell]

You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.

Uh, what? How does the "Millionaire killed ABC" mantra and the older-skewing demos for game shows affect sitcoms in any way?

Also, I want to agree with everything Matt says...because he's the moderator. That's a joke, folks. Seriously, Matt's right that no clearcut evidence of outright rigging has yet surfaced in the current glut of reality shows and talent contests. There have been rumors and accusations, which indicate that some people think the 1960 law would be very applicable to these shows. But no-two-ways-about-it proof of rigging? Hasn't happened.

[MSTieScott]

During the million-dollar game show boom of 1999-2000, I did a small survey of some students at my college about the shows for an assignment. One of the questions I asked was along the lines of "How would you feel if you discovered these shows were rigged?" or maybe "Do you believe these shows are rigged?" (It's been a while -- I don't remember exactly). Granted, it was a small sample, but I was shocked that a good majority of respondents didn't care if the shows were rigged or not.

If one of the more popular shows was proven to be rigged, I can see there being some outcry, but would anyone care if, say, the winner of "The Swan" was predetermined? Would anybody even react negatively if any it's-obviously-a-game-show shows were proven to be rigged? (Well, there'd certainly be a reaction for Jeopardy!.)

That kind of makes me sad.

--
Scott Robinson

[Speedy G]

[quote name=\'MSTieScott\' date=\'Oct 4 2004, 04:16 PM\']If one of the more popular shows was proven to be rigged, I can see there being some outcry, but would anyone care if, say, the winner of "The Swan" was predetermined? Would anybody even react negatively if any it's-obviously-a-game-show shows were proven to be rigged? (Well, there'd certainly be a reaction for Jeopardy!.)
[/quote]
The password is... "Manhunt", the Vince McMahon debacle which had WWF-reject-looking "hunters" shooting with paintball guns at the unfortunate few who signed up for that crap.  Both a number of contestants and a number of staff members came out and said the thing was outright staged in many places.  If I remember correctly, it got a rating of about 0.4 on UPN.

Nope, it'd have to be obvious, popular, and witch-hunt-able before anyone would even begin to care about rigging.

[CaseyAbell]

Yep, there was a lot of flak about Manhunt's, er, "staging". Our friend the Prof was involved! There was a kerfuffle about somewhat similar shennanigans on the far higher-profile Survivor. But there really wasn't absolute, incontrovertible proof of outright rigging with a predetermined result.

And I think many people don't want to look naive, so they'll say that rigging wouldn't bother them or they think it's going on anyway. But they'd probably still feel a little snookered if their favorite game show or reality epic turned out to have been fixed.

OTOH, the well-known practice of final-table deals in poker tournaments doesn't seem to have affected those shows' popularity. So maybe people don't really care all that much.

But on the third hand, if it could be shown that a Survivor or Amazing Race series was absolutely flat-out rigged, I gotta think there'd be serious conniption fits.

Gee, I've got opinion on this issue pretty well surrounded.

EDIT: Kinda funny how this thread is working back towards another long thread on the board about the MG/H2 hour with the soap stars. One point in that thread was how not scripting and prepping the celebs in H2 really hurt that game's entertainment value.

Of course, this scripting and prepping was kinda, shall we say, delicate in the decades immediately following the rigging scandals. That's why Mark Goodson wouldn't allow it on MG/H2.

Many have made the point that the prepping wasn't actual rigging because the outcome wasn't predetermined. True, but the prepping obviously affected the quality of the celebs' bluffs, and thus the contestants' judgment of those bluffs, and thus eventually the outcome of the game. Even if the contestants knew what was going on, and I assume that they all did, it's still snuggling uncomfortably close to 47 USC 509.

The prepping was disclaimed, of course, which got the producers off the legal hook because they weren't purporting that the contest was completely bona fide. But while traditionalists like the Prof get hot and bothered by staging or manipulation in reality shows, somehow H2 gets grandfathered in on its manipulation of the celebs' answers.

I don't know, I'm not a purist on the issue. I'm not a fan of H2 exactly because the humor and the bluffs seem so rehearsed. But I gotta admit that Mr. Goodson's version really drags and bores without the scripted stuff.

[starcade]

[quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:35 PM\']You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.

Tyshaun

[snapback]59364[/snapback]

[/quote]

There is quite a bit of belief that if "reality TV" goes much further, it'll swallow television whole.  What was it that I heard?  40% of the fall schedule is now "reality"

And, after Friends and Frasier left, the sitcom just might be on life support right now anyway...

[starcade]

[quote name=\'Matt Ottinger\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 09:36 PM\']
[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:47 PM\']

Kinda slippery phrase that some lawyer could argue doesn't apply to talent contests or reality shows, though these seem to have some elements of intellectual skill and/or chance. I doubt that such a strained, legalistic argument would carry the day if a talent contest or reality show was discovered to have been rigged outright.

Matt and others, in answering me on this subject, have basically come up with the argument of "Who really gives a ---?"  

Those of us making that argument probably aren't wording it exactly that way...

But...uh...yeah, basically.  This isn't a fight that anybody seems too interested in pursuing, except a handful of disgruntled losers who haven't been able to take it very far.  I'd even go so far as to say that some amount of controversy is actually good for some of these shows.

And I have a serious problem with that.  Not that you are wrong, Matt...

I think the way of thinking you espouse is exactly why reality TV has run over all other genres (and will kill game shows if they ever get to the last bastions in syndication).  As I said in my first statement in this thread, if reality TV is allowed to play by its own rules, then game shows can't compete because of the manipulative factor Burnett, the Simons, et. al. can put into their shows -- manipulations game shows can't do (though they've tried).

I'm not a "disgruntled loser" by any stretch and I have complained.  I think we have to understand that there are mechanisms which allow programs to get away with theoretical murder (like AI, see below) where all pretense of legitimacy is spurious at best.

The simple fact is that we're a much more jaded and cynical society now than we were in the late fifties when we were shocked to learn that our real-life heroes on TV weren't what they claimed to be.  We now have a much more realistic view of the "reality" we see on TV, and it's no longer as necessary as it once was (or at least seemed to be) for the FCC to protect us from the big scary producers who might lie to us.

We still have the laws, though.  We still have the situation where the games are supposed to be legitimate.  I mean, you are correct:  A TV Guide poll done just before Millionaire started in 1999 showed 2 of 5 didn't care whether the games were rigged or not!  That still doesn't change the fact that the laws exist and should be either enforced or repealed.

Sure, if it turned out that a popular show was proven without a doubt to be completely and totally rigged, there'd be public outcry and fallout.  But all I've seen are armchair conspiracy theorists who seem to think that somehow, from the comfort of their living rooms, they know more about how these shows are put together than anyone else.

Dagger taken, Matt...

I don't even know if your premise in this paragraph would necessarily be true -- but finding out would be about the only thing which could save game shows (not to mention most of prime-time television).  As more and more reality TV takes over the airwaves, it might become unrealistic to think any competitive television is legit.

To wit:  Is American Idol actually "shady as all get-out" because they haven't addressed slam voting, or are they merely using an imperfect voting system?  Some talent shows on television are judged by who gets the loudest applause, and that doesn't strike me as terribly scientific.  The nation seems transfixed by the "competition" of The Apprentice, which best as I can tell, is totally based on Donald Trump's whims.  And don't even dredge up that business about Burnett restaging parts of his competitions to get a better camera shot.  Jeopardy does that.

AI:  I believe there's a scheme or artifice which allows the producers to name their own winners and even predetermine the order of finish for dramatic effect.  This is done by a system which so allows "slam-voters" to flood all available lines for multiple contestants (if not all of them, as is esp. true in the finals) and then create an enforced tie, which then, because of clauses deep within the contracts, the producers would then "break".  Their refusal to address this problem is rigging the show.  There are many other ways in which this is done as well.

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 01:40 PM\'][quote name=\'tyshaun1\' date=\'Oct 2 2004, 04:35 PM\']You must realize that while Casey is right in some instances, it is just his opinion. If you listen to that reasoning, the sitcom is also dead.

Tyshaun

[snapback]59364[/snapback]

[/quote]

There is quite a bit of belief that if "reality TV" goes much further, it'll swallow television whole.  What was it that I heard?  40% of the fall schedule is now "reality"

[snapback]59624[/snapback]

[/quote]

Sunday:  4 out of 18 hours ("AFHV," "Extreme Home," "The Partner" in Nov. and I'm counting Steve Harvey as reality)

Monday:  3 out of 15 ("Benefactor," "Fear Factor," "Renovate"/"Swan")

Tuesday:  2 out of 15 (the forthcoming Branson show, "Last Comic"/"Biggest Loser"/'Contender"--would've included "Next Great Champ," but it's been shunted to FSN)

Wednesday:  3 out of 15 ("Bachelor," "Wife Swap," "Top Model")

Thursday:  3 out of 15 ("Survivor," "Apprentice," "Extreme Makeover")

Friday:  2 out of 15 ("Complex," "Top Model" repeat--"Next Champ"'s repeat has to be taken out of the running)

Saturday:  4 out of 11 ("Cops," "AMW," "Apprentice" repeat, "Amazing Race")

Out of 104 hours of broadcast network prime time programming, 21 hours are devoted to reality shows (23 if you count "Next Champ" and assume that it'll be replaced by reality programming).  That's only a little over 20 percent--meaning it has less of a chokehold than some would like you to believe.  However, it is on at least two or more networks every night this fall.

[starcade]

I'm only going on reports that I had heard for the 40% remark.  But even 20% is far far too much.  Remember, this has only been four years since Survivor started polluting TV with this rigged crap.

(And sorry for screwing up all the quote flags on that last one...)

But, yes, I am a traditionalist.  That's one of the reasons I loved Millionaire.  That's one of the reasons I was so troubled when John Carpenter won three nights after Hair Guy's team split a million on Fox...

I think the only reason that there hasn't been an expose of the entire genre of reality TV is that there isn't enough to fill all the airtime now if it gets canned.  There's too much money involved.  How much corporate money do you think the advertisers get out of American Idol, for example?

[uncamark]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 02:06 PM\']I'm only going on reports that I had heard for the 40% remark.  But even 20% is far far too much.  Remember, this has only been four years since Survivor started polluting TV with this rigged crap.

(And sorry for screwing up all the quote flags on that last one...)

But, yes, I am a traditionalist.  That's one of the reasons I loved Millionaire.  That's one of the reasons I was so troubled when John Carpenter won three nights after Hair Guy's team split a million on Fox...

I think the only reason that there hasn't been an expose of the entire genre of reality TV is that there isn't enough to fill all the airtime now if it gets canned.  There's too much money involved.  How much corporate money do you think the advertisers get out of American Idol, for example?

[snapback]59631[/snapback]

[/quote]

Oh, network television will just go back and do 20 sitcoms written by hack failed standups and Harvard Lampoon interns.  

But reality won't go away completely--it's too economical not to go away completely--just like there were a lot of panel shows in the 50s in between "Playhouse 90" and "Kraft Theater."  Networks have always wanted something to offset expensive sitcoms and drama series and reality now fits the bill.  They will have their day in the sun and recede in popularity for a while, but they'll never go away.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'starcade\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 02:49 PM\']AI:  I believe there's a scheme or artifice which allows the producers to name their own winners and even predetermine the order of finish for dramatic effect.  [/quote]
To me anyway, your whole point boils down to this, which was the point of my...dagger.  You believe, in your heart of hearts, not only something that you can't prove is true, but something that somebody probably WOULD have been able to prove by now if it was true.  Don't you think there are rivals that would LOVE to be able to tear American Idol down?  And a hungry media that would jump all over the story if it even looked like it MIGHT be true?

If you go into your argument assuming that AI is rigged, it's a fairly easy step for you to say that any reality show is manipulating results in ways none of us mere viewers can see.  But since that main point remains unproven (by a long shot) your case to convince others of your belief is pretty weak.

[SRIV94]

[quote name=\'uncamark\' date=\'Oct 5 2004, 01:59 PM\']Sunday:  4 out of 18 hours ("AFHV," "Extreme Home," "The Partner" in Nov. and I'm counting Steve Harvey as reality)
[/quote]
Maybe it's me, but I wouldn't count STEVE HARVEY'S BIG TIME as a reality series.  While there are some competition aspects, most of what's presented is more exhibition/performance in nature (which means, in the words of David Letterman, please no wagering).  Of course, YMMV.

Doug -- and the countdown to 700 continues

[Fedya]

Mark Jeffries wrote:

But reality won't go away completely--it's too economical not to go away completely--just like there were a lot of panel shows in the 50s in between "Playhouse 90" and "Kraft Theater." Networks have always wanted something to offset expensive sitcoms and drama series and reality now fits the bill.

The networks could always go back to having six of seven nights of Dateline NBC equivalents.  It's not like that stuff is any more expensive or less rigged to blow up than the "reality" genre.  :-)